|
Election Security
A couple years ago, this column was an interview format based on questions dealing with election security and integrity. Two registrars explained the procedures taken in the local offices to ensure that every vote counts and that there is voting security in every precinct. One tool they mentioned that was very useful in maintaining accurate voting rolls was participation in ERIC (Electronic Registration Information Center). It’s important for us to understand this organization because seven states (Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia) have withdrawn their membership at a time when every means possible should be exercised to maintain election integrity by as many states as possible. Governor Youngkin has recently withdrawn Virginia from ERIC.
ERIC is a public nonprofit organization comprised of 32 states and Washington, D.C. whose mission is to improve the accuracy of voter rolls and to increase access to voter registration for all eligible citizens. It was created in 2012 by election officials from Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Nevada, Utah, Virginia, and Washington with assistance from The Pew Charitable Trusts. It is funded by its members. New members pay a fee of $25,000, which is reserved for technology upgrades and other unanticipated expenses. To cover operating expenses, members pay annual dues which are approved in ERIC’s annual budget and are based somewhat on the citizen voting age population so that larger states pay more than smaller ones. An independent audit is conducted annually. Eric is controlled by its members. The election official from each member state designates a representative to the ERIC Board of Directors.
The ERIC website (ericstates.org) explains what personal data is collected and the measures taken to ensure that data is secure, including background examinations of employees. The reports it generates for the member states identify voters who appear to have moved from one ERIC state to another, to have moved from one jurisdiction to another within the member state, to have duplicate registrations in the same state, to have died, appear to be eligible to vote but are not yet registered, to have voted more than once in the jurisdiction in the same election, or to have voted on behalf of a deceased voter within the member jurisdiction. Recently, a local registrar told me she was in the process of contacting each one of the names on one of these lists to verify addresses. I encourage you to go to this website to learn how valuable this tool is to registrars.
It seems most inefficient and counter productive not to take advantage of an organization to aid the state in maintaining accurate voter rolls, especially when Virginia was a founder of the organization and has a member on the board who could work to correct any deficiencies noted. Reinventing the wheel and succumbing to fears of conspiracy rarely produce positive results.
| 
